More Lovely Tolerance From The Left...

[Carrikature]

which has nothing at all to do with your comment to rumtum above. Talking about burning straw.

no he wasn't. He even quoted Rumtum in his post.

Try again. I quoted RTT in the post to which I responded to RTT. My comments about the scoutmasters were in response to KG, which is who I quoted in that post.

[Sparko]

Try again. I quoted RTT in the post to which I responded to RTT. My comments about the scoutmasters were in response to KG, which is who I quoted in that post.

OK let's start over. You said RumTums post was straw and the fuss was all about the line above her bolded text.
That line reads "To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;" which means you are saying the fuss is about it being a religious organisation.
I responded that no, it was because they didn't allow gay scoutmasters.
KG said they did allow gay members.
You then reiterated that they didn't allow gay scoutmaster, which is what I said.

That means your initial comment about RumTums post being nothing but straw and that it was about it being a religious organization is straw itself. Because it being a religious organization, which it is not, is not what all the fuss is about. It is about people not liking that they don't allow gay scoutmasters.

clear now?

[Carrikature]

OK let's start over. You said RumTums post was straw and the fuss was all about the line above her bolded text.
That line reads "To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;" which means you are saying the fuss is about it being a religious organisation.
I responded that no, it was because they didn't allow gay scoutmasters.
KG said they did allow gay members.
You then reiterated that they didn't allow gay scoutmaster, which is what I said.

That means your initial comment about RumTums post being nothing but straw and that it was about it being a religious organization is straw itself. Because it being a religious organization, which it is not, is not what all the fuss is about. It is about people not liking that they don't allow gay scoutmasters.

clear now?

Yep. It's clear that you didn't understand my response to RTT. I didn't say that religious reasons were the only thing the fuss is about. The bolded above is explicitly false. Anyone remotely familiar with this case (which is everyone here) knows full well that the gay discrimination is what is the primary issue. The religious aspect is an additional concern, and if KG's correct about atheists not being allowed then it's a legitimate one.

My response to KG was in response specifically to the question he asked. I've made no strawman.

[Sparko]

[RumTumTugger]

Yep. It's clear that you didn't understand my response to RTT. I didn't say that religious reasons were the only thing the fuss is about. The bolded above is explicitly false. Anyone remotely familiar with this case (which is everyone here) knows full well that the gay discrimination is what is the primary issue. The religious aspect is an additional concern, and if KG's correct about atheists not being allowed then it's a legitimate one.

My response to KG was in response specifically to the question he asked. I've made no strawman.

actually Carri you did not even look at the other part that was bolded where they promise to help others so who's looking at strawmen here? And I know very well what the Intolerant liberal Bullies dislike about the Boy scouts I was pointing out that the Bullies don't care about what the Boy Scouts really stand for they'd rather focus on the views held that they don't like the Boy Scouts for holding and so will bully anyone who supports them thereby showing who the real intolerant people the ones who want you to lock step into their way of thinking or else.

[Carrikature]

actually Carri you did not even look at the other part that was bolded where they promise to help others so who's looking at strawmen here? And I know very well what the Intolerant liberal Bullies dislike about the Boy scouts I was pointing out that the Bullies don't care about what the Boy Scouts really stand for they'd rather focus on the views held that they don't like the Boy Scouts for holding and so will bully anyone who supports them thereby showing who the real intolerant people the ones who want you to lock step into their way of thinking or else.

RTT, how would you know if I looked at it? That's a silly thing to say. Of course I looked at it. I understood your point, too. I think it's a false one, and it blatantly ignored what the fuss is about, which is what I said. It's possible to stand for multiple things, after all, and it's possible that people like some of those things but not others. Do you really expect us to believe that these 'intolerant liberal bullies' dislike the parts you pointed out? Do you expect us to believe it's impossible to correct flaws in what is otherwise a good thing? Do you mean to suggest that we should ignore such flaws simply because there are good things there too? I would hope not, on all counts.

[Psychic Missile]

what do you think this thread is about? saying that judges can't belong [youth] organizations that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Yeah keep shifting those goal posts around.

What goal posts? You made an assumption based on something I didn't say.

[RumTumTugger]

RTT, how would you know if I looked at it? That's a silly thing to say. Of course I looked at it. I understood your point, too. I think it's a false one, and it blatantly ignored what the fuss is about, which is what I said. It's possible to stand for multiple things, after all, and it's possible that people like some of those things but not others. Do you really expect us to believe that these 'intolerant liberal bullies' dislike the parts you pointed out? Do you expect us to believe it's impossible to correct flaws in what is otherwise a good thing? Do you mean to suggest that we should ignore such flaws simply because there are good things there too? I would hope not, on all counts.

No Carri that is not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that you stand up to the Intolerant bullies who would have you believe the Boyscouts are the same as the ku klux klan and neo nazi groups. That is what they are saying here Carri and that is what I'm standing up against bullies who say you do and say and think what we want you to or else. that is what this is about Carri nothing else a group of bullies who want others to think like them or be treated like second class citizens or worse slaves.

[Teallaura]

Y'all realize that if judges aren't allowed to be involved in scouting they also cannot be involved with gay rights groups which are inherently discriminatory - unless they allow those with anti-gay positions to not only belong but hold office (in which case they are morons). Sauce works on geese and ganders alike.


All groups are discriminatory at some level. There's no group with no membership qualifications at all - even humanity requires being human (some of y'all have more trouble than others with that ).

[Carrikature]

No Carri that is not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that you stand up to the Intolerant bullies who would have you believe the Boyscouts are the same as the ku klux klan and neo nazi groups. That is what they are saying here Carri and that is what I'm standing up against bullies who say you do and say and think what we want you to or else. that is what this is about Carri nothing else a group of bullies who want others to think like them or be treated like second class citizens or worse slaves.

Please, please, show me even a shred of proof to back up these claims. You can't do it, and we both know it. The irony of the second half of this post is that you support laws that also "say you do and say and think what we want you to or else".

[Carrikature]

Y'all realize that if judges aren't allowed to be involved in scouting they also cannot be involved with gay rights groups which are inherently discriminatory - unless they allow those with anti-gay positions to not only belong but hold office (in which case they are morons). Sauce works on geese and ganders alike.

None of this bothers me, Teal.

All groups are discriminatory at some level. There's no group with no membership qualifications at all - even humanity requires being human (some of y'all have more trouble than others with that ).

This mostly feels like an equivocation of 'discriminatory'. There's nothing wrong with requiring certain qualifications to join a group, nor do I really care if the BSA chooses to exclude people based on certain criteria. When it comes to public servants, though, it's in our own best interest to expect them to conform to certain behaviors. That goes double when the public servant is expected to perform a service where impartiality is a basic requirement. So sure, prevent them from joining pro-gay movements. That's fine with me.

[Darth Executor]

This mostly feels like an equivocation of 'discriminatory'. There's nothing wrong with requiring certain qualifications to join a group, nor do I really care if the BSA chooses to exclude people based on certain criteria. When it comes to public servants, though, it's in our own best interest to expect them to conform to certain behaviors. That goes double when the public servant is expected to perform a service where impartiality is a basic requirement. So sure, prevent them from joining pro-gay movements. That's fine with me.

Yeah bro it's in "our" best interest to make homophilia (IOW, liberalism) a requirement of being a public servant.

The idea that ideological tests for public servants serve "the public's" best interest is absurd. It serves the interest of whoever believes in the value being enforced. It certainly does not serve the interest of anybody else.